Attacking the other side meaning the people discussing the topic (i.e. you vs McGilliguts). Talking about Anita would actually be on topic.

Your solution is deflection, because you don't actually want people to make games. You want to flip the script to distract from the missteps and flaws of the person you're defending.

Oh boy. The irony is I can't ever remember actually hearing about this woman in any context whatsoever except for people protesting how popular she is, so whenever someone quotes her in another source, or she's on a show, etc. Which is kind of self-defeating since, again, the only reason she seems to be popular enough to float past my sphere of perception is because of all the people protesting the very popularity they're indirectly... Actually, not even, the popularity they're DIRECTLY feeding.

I listen to some of her stuff, and I disagree with a lot of it. But the only difference between her and, say, the flat Earth Society, who also says all kinds of stuff I don't really agree with, is the latter doesn't attract so much opposition that catapults them into the forefront. I can't remember the last time I heard someone bring up, anywhere on the Internet, what the Flat Earth Society is talking about.

So here's what will likely happen. If the news picks up on this at all, it will be picking up on the fact that there is literally a petition boycotting her. The media will then trigger a new stream of interviews asking her opinion on what's happening, which will just lead to more publicity for her, which will just make that spotlight shine even brighter. So if the Colbert report has her on the show AGAIN, nobody be going around asking why the heck she's so gosh darn popular. =P

LOL more fail and flopping, trying to move the goal post, the actual topic would be the affect of more feminism in game design. Attacking Anita Sarkeesian and feminist designers IS attacking the other side, no matter how you delude yourself into think it's not. Nice try tho, and thanks for proving me right. For the record I DO want people to make more games, there is no deflection just you jumping to unfounded assumptions based on emotion and fear like usual. See I'm a real gamer, I'm thrilled by the opportunity to have more games, not only more games but diverse games. Which is something you should strive to be instead of this walking talking stereotype that gives credence to Anita Sarkeesian's movement.

Now what law exactly makes this happen? Sounds like to me your saying that peoples personal bias is causing this percentage not an actual law. In this case it's not just the women who think men make lesser parents it's the men too. Now how many more qualified fathers, who have evidence to show this are not getting custody to that 90% extent? 

Feminism actual fights that. A lot of women want to be regarded as more than just mothers and care takers. If our society drops a lot of these sexist thoughts of women being more stay at home and men being judged negativly for staying at home and taking care of the kids this kinda stuff will stop.

Oh believe me, I'm no fan of Anita, or her sensationalist, hypocritical wankery.

I simply believe, based on both real life and online experiences, and from knowing a great deal of female gamers, that a certain segment of the gamer population is often quite sexist. I'm not saying games made them that way, just that certain games attract a certain class of male.

I concur though that it needs to be fixed at a society level, not by censoring games.

well i'm not going to start doing extensive lists to prove that feminism really is doing this

as i figure it should be fairly obvious that considering that the goal of feminism is to change society then there must also be some change in the guidelines that society follows

but i will provide one extreme example

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-29619/The-city-banned-men.html

where does this come from?

i would say that it comes from the perception that men are violent sexually deviant baboons

as anita implies here for example

and therefore must have restrictions placed upon them

this is where the affirmative consent act comes from

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/an-apalling-case-for-affirmative-consent-laws/381518/#disqus_thread

now i agree with the purpose of these restrictions they are to provide a safer environment with women, however, there are evidently problems that arise here

it is also where we get revisions to rape laws which make it so that women cannot rape men legally

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-eric-holder-announces-revisions-uniform-crime-report-s-definition-rape

now what surprises me is how men do not get alarmed when they see the comments above by anita for example... is it not apparent that to some degree a hatred of masculinity fuels comments like this that feminist make routinely? why is it that if a man says something similar he is a misogynist but women get a pass? not that hatred should be perpetuated in any form... i don't know perhaps i'm going too far out of the general consensus with this paragraph

I really don't see whats to get alarmed about. Does she hate  maculinity or men? They are not the same thing. I would have no problems if a male made similiar comments and would not deem them misogynistic. If others do a lot of time it's because of the "priviledge" aspect. I have seen plenty of lifetime movies that really potray men as terrible and would use some of her same arguments, but those movies usually are pretty sexist to women as well and are not so prevelent that it has become a problem. Women aren't the ones that made men seem like "violent sexually deviant baboons" it's us other men that do. When we see something Violent or hyper-sexualizied we say' "hey thats for guys".  If we had more women in poltics and in the armies of the world maybe I could blame women for this perception of males. Believe me I hate it but I am not going to blame Anita or Feminism for this view.

No I agree completely. Basically, Anita is outraged that men find attractive women attractive. 

Since, over the years, I got pretty tired talking about this subjects, specially with people who don't see or don't want to see certain aspects of these "modern" societies, I'll just give you a few hints, if you're interested at digging deeper, and then recluse myself...

Check statistics on family violence, violence against children in family, number of tax-funded shelters for women vs number of tax-funded shelters for men, then who has to leave home once divorce is mentioned (and why), who is treated guilty until proved innocent even if falsely accused in the eyes of law once even "fear of abuse" is claimed by the woman, and all things regarding familly court in general...and this is just scratching the surface. Just get your shovel and start digging.

Modern feminism has nothing to do with equality, and is militant abomination of once legitimate movement for equal rights. Until people figure this out and start supporting egalitarianism we'll be seeing much more of these misandristic trends in "modern" societies.

no normal women cares about bayos tits or gta whores. but they do care about getting constantly harassed in multiplayer games.